GOVERNMENT SENATOR Arthur Williams parted company with his parliamentary colleagues yesterday and pressed for the abolition of defamation trials by jury.
Senator Williams, who is also state minister for finance and the public service, argued strongly that the current defamation law should be amended to allow a judge only to preside over such cases.
His comments came during the second meeting of a joint select committee of Parliament considering a report by the Justice Hugh Small committee, which was appointed by Prime Minister Bruce Golding last year to review the country's defamation laws.
Defence not proven
The Justice Small committee had recommended that provisions be introduced in the defamation law to redefine the role of the jury to that of determining "whether the defamatory matter was published by the defendant and whether any defence has been proven".
The Justice Small committee further recommended that a judge alone should determine an award if the defendant was found to be culpable.
Government backbencher and attorney-at-law Clive Mullings supported the proposal, arguing that a jury would not be able to accurately evaluate the kind of award that would be consistent with the damages.
He contended that the area of defamation was very technical and the burden of assessing an award should be left to a judge.
Government MP Laurie Broderick asked whether the committee was questioning the competence of the jury.
However, K.D. Knight, another committee member, was blunt in his response, saying he was not convinced that a jury consisting of lay persons could follow the principles guiding the assessment of damages.
Stressing his point, Knight argued that there were attorneys who could handle defamation cases while others could not.
Committee Chairperson Dorothy Lightbourne suggested that "special jurors" comprising persons with certain background and knowledge could sit on the jury.
Solicitor General Douglas Leys, who provided technical expertise for the committee, said media managers have expressed serious concerns that a libel award could "wipe out" media entities which were "on the verge of insolvency".
Reduction period proposed
Justice Small's committee also proposed a reduction in the period for an action of defamation from six years to a year. The majority of committee members want a two-year cut-off point.
On the issue of replacing the defence of justification by the defence of truth, a number of committee members expressed reservation.
Commenting on a recommendation to introduce a defence of triviality, Knight dismissed the proposal, saying a person who had been defamed should be compensated.
Representatives from media associations will, on May 27, appear before the committee to discuss the recommendations of the Justice Small report.
edmond.campbell@gleanerjm.com